Renewable Energy 151 (2020) 627e639

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Electricity system scenario development of India with import

independence in 2030
Priyanka Laha a, Basab Chakraborty a, *, Poul Alberg Østergaard b
a
Rajendra Mishra School of Engineering Entrepreneurship, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur, 721302, India
b
Department of Planning, Aalborg University, Rendsburggade 14, 9000, Aalborg, Denmark

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper presents the first comprehensive hourly-resolution scenario study of the Indian electricity
Received 26 February 2019 system with a view to investigate the transition from fossil to renewable energy-based power generation.
Received in revised form Currently, India is 76% dependent on coal for power generation, however ambitious goals exist. Energy
24 September 2019
organisations including International Renewable Energy Agency and The Energy and Resources Institute,
Accepted 13 November 2019
Available online 15 November 2019
have presented scenarios but neither with support of dynamic simulation nor with assessment of
optimal renewable energy contributions. In this paper, the optimal electricity system is analyzed in
comparison with these. Results show that an optimal scenario could supply the hourly electricity by (i)
Keywords:
Energy PLAN scenario development
increasing production capacity to about 615 GW, which is a 98.3% increase compared to the 310 GW in
India 2016, (ii) improving capacity factor of wind power and photovoltaic to 27% and 21% respectively, (iii)
Import independence increasing wind power production to 433 TWh/yr (from 46 GWh/yr in 2016), solar photovoltaic to
Hydro 290 TWh/yr (12 GWh/yr in 2016), river hydro to 42 TWh/yr (7.7 GWh/yr in 2016), biomass and nuclear
Wind power of 15 GW each. The costs of the identified optimal scenario are lower than of the previous sce-
PV narios. Finally, simulations show that inclusion of optimal proportion of biomass and nuclear could avoid
any import dependency.
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The oil crises of the 1970s and later climate change mitigation
has drawn attention to the transformation of the power sector
[1e3], and one of the consequences is that energy policy makers
have furthered the use of renewable energy sources (RES) to
replace fossil fuels. This has resulted in declining RES-prices which
are currently pacing the installation rate [4e8]. There are, however
large differences in the uptake across countries and countries with
large energy growth rates pose particular problems.
1.1. The Indian electricity system
India relies heavily on coal power plants - approximately 76% [9]
in 2016 e and the capacity on coal-fired power plants nearly tripled
from 2006 to 2016 as shown in Fig. 1. Over the same period of time,
installed capacity of nuclear, natural gas and hydro have increased
by about 45% (estimated from data given in Ref. [10]).
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: basab@see.iitkgp.ac.in (B. Chakraborty).
The large expansion of coal power plants, however, has severe
environmental consequences. Thus, India has embarked on an
ambitious plan [11] to scale up non-fossil fuel-based capacity to
contribute 40% [12] of the electric power by 2030. In fact, the Indian
government has envisaged that the country reaches a renewable
installed capacity of 44.4% by the year 2027 e thus even surpassing
their 2030 target [13].
Development has already been significant with RES leaping
from 6.19 GW to 45.9 GW from 2006 to 2016, though this is still
small compared to coal’s 188.8 GW. The share of RES, however, has
increased from 1.4% in 2006 to 6.6% in 2016 with an installed ca-
pacity of river hydro, biomass, solar and wind of about 14.8%
(calculated from data given in Ref. [9]) of the total installed
capacity.
A RES potential of about 900 GW from commercially exploitable
sources has been estimated by the Indian government which
comprises of 102 GW of wind, 25 GW of bio energy and 750 GW of
solar power [14], assuming 3% wasteland. An estimated potential of
21 GW of river hydro power is the result from considering 7134
sites. At the same time, however, the yearly electricity demand is
projected to increase from 1160 TWh in 2016-17 to 2531 TWh in

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.11.059
0960-1481/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
628 P. Laha et al. / Renewable Energy 151 (2020) 627e639

Acronyms Pcondensing_pp Condensing power plant production

Pdammed_hydro Dammed hydro production
CEA Central Electricity Authority PP Power plant
CEEP Critical electricity excess production PRES Renewable production
CHP Combined Heat and Power Priver_hydro River hydro production
Dt,i Demand of technology ‘t’ at ith hour Psolar Solar energy production
EEEP Exportable Excess Electricity Production Pt,i Production of technology ‘t’ at ith hour
ICr Installed Capacity of Renewable Resource PV Photovoltaic
ICr min Minimum installed capacity of renewable resource Pwind Wind energy production
ICr min Maximum installed capacity of renewable resource RES Renewable Energy Sources
Im Import RNDI Renewable-Nuclear Dependency Index
IRENA International Renewable Energy Agency SC1-SC52 Scenario
NLDC National Load Despatch Centre St,i Storage of technology ‘t’ at ith hour
Pbiomass Biomass production TERI The Energy and Resources Institute
PCON Conventional energy production

In Ref. [24], the authors examined the possibility of a near 100%

RES scenario in India. Results show that theoretically it is feasible to
achieve 90% RES integration by 2051. With the RES outputs being
defined at annual levels, however, the analysis overlooks the vari-
ability of the time-dependent RES. Likewise, Byravan et al. [25]
studied two scenarios using the India Multi Regional TIMES model
to provide insights for GHG emissions intensity reduction by 2030.
This method, however, limits the inclusion of the inter-annual
variations in the supply technologies. Shukla et al. [26] developed
‘conventional’ and ‘sustainable’ scenarios estimating the CO2
emission annually. Scenarios have also been developed by IRENA
[27] and TERI [28], however they too have not been simulated with
a high temporal resolution. This review provides impetus for high
temporal resolution scenario based analysis.
Fig. 1. Installed electricity generation capacity for years 2006e2016 in India. Based on
data from Ref. [10].
1.2. Scope, novelty and structure of the article

2031-32 with a peak demand increasing from 162 GW in 2016 to
370 GW in 2031-32 [15].
Already the growth in power generation from 2014 to 2016 was
about 6.9% [16]. In this context, energy scenarios can provide a
framework for exploring future energy perspectives especially
during a phase when there is a distinct paradigm shift taking place
in the energy sector [17e19]. In fact, when introducing high
amounts of intermittent production, systems simulations are
required to properly assess the technical feasibility.
Only limited work on India has been reported in the literature.
Parikh [20] performed scenario analysis to assess the potential for
reduction of India’s emission intensity and examined policy mea-
sures for realizing it. However, the scenarios lacked high-resolution
temporal analysis.
Gadre and Anandarajah [21] developed low carbon scenarios
using the TIAM-UCL model. The analysis suggests a high share of
RES to meet the emission reduction under the 2
C target, but the
approach does not capture the temporal dynamics of RES.
Mishra et al. [22] explored scenarios until 2050, concluding that
only carbon capture and storage have the potential to reduce
emission. In the context of integrating a new technology to the
existing system without analyzing at finer temporal resolution, it
risks an under-or overestimation of the carbon storage required
when operated in real time.
Parikh et al. [23] conducted scenario analysis implementing a
multi-sectoral optimizing model. Scenario assessment illustrate the
pathways of CO2 emission reduction; however, the temporal vari-
ability is underrepresented.
This paper explores the possibility of a zero import-dependent
Indian electricity system in 2030 by developing a model of the
electricity system, exploiting the optimal mix of RES and its
constraints.
The literature review reveals that the availability of high tem-
poral resolution peer-reviewed papers exploring optimal RES sce-
narios for India is very sparse. Thus, the Indian electricity sector is
modelled for year 2030 at hourly resolution, exploring RES namely
solar PV (photovoltaic), wind, river hydro and biomass to determine
the optimal points where RES integration is maximized with the
electricity import becoming zero and the system produces suffi-
cient to be able to start exporting. This represents one of the nov-
elties of this article and is mirrored in the two research questions:
i. What is the optimal renewable scenario for India in the year
2030 based on minimum import dependency?
ii. What is the effect of RES penetration on import?
MATLAB functions have been implemented to complete an
iteration of 1260 times for each biomass capacity considered, and a
final novelty of the paper is that the hourly analysis has resulted in
realizing the requirement of optimal share of RES in the generation
mix for India so as to minimize import.
The optimal scenario is also compared with the scenarios pro-
posed by IRENA and TERI. The evaluation of these two scenarios
enables to realize the number of hours the system has to depend on
electricity import. The optimal scenario however does not generate
excess electricity for export. Finally, it has been analyzed levels of
wind and PV penetration, allowing the excess generation for
 P. Laha et al. / Renewable Energy 151 (2020) 627e639
export.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes the
methodology proposed for developing the optimal scenarios con-
cerning the Indian electricity sector. Section 3 validates the refer-
ence electricity system and discusses results of the future scenarios
developed. Finally, conclusions are discussed in Section 4.
2. Methodology
The optimal scenario of the Indian electricity system can be
evaluated considering multiple aspects of the system such as sys-
tem cost, emission, RES consumption etc. Section 2.1 details the
General Methodological Approach applied to generate the optimal
scenario for 2030, while Section 2.2 presents the modelling tool
EnergyPLAN applied to develop the scenarios.
2.1. General Methodological Approach
This section presents a comprehensive three-step methodology:
(1) replicating the year 2016 Indian electricity sector in Ener-
gyPLAN as a reference scenario
(2) exploring all combinations of RES within its declared
maximum potential to analyze the effects of introducing it to
the system and iterate till the optimal configuration is
reached
(3) analyzing the proposed optimal scenario along with a
comprehensive evaluation of previously proposed scenarios
of IRENA and TERI at hourly resolution.
Mathematically, the optimal scenarios are found using the
objective function (Obj_func) given in Eq. (1):
2 3
minxi ½ImportðTWhÞ
Obj_func: 4 maxxi ½RES ProductionðTWhÞ 5 The electric efficiency for the condensing-mode power plants is
minxi ½Excess Electricity Production ðTWhÞ
(Eq. 1)
2 2
ImportðTWhÞ
Or; Obj_func: 4minx 4 Generation from Coal þ NaturalGas þ Oil þ Nuclear ðTWhÞ55
i
Excess Electricity Production ðTWhÞ
subject to Year 2016_CapacityValue  xi
Maximum_PotentialValue
2.2. Modelling tool
To simulate the electricity scenarios of India, the EnergyPLAN
v13.0 is applied in conjunction with the MATLAB toolbox [29].
EnergyPLAN has been designed to simulate and compare scenarios
of national or regional energy-system [30e35]. It is an hourly
deterministic priority list energy system model. Inputs comprise
technology data such as costs, installed capacities and efficiencies
of supply and storage technologies, aggregated yearly demands of
heat, electricity, and transportation, and hourly demand and RES
availability data for a leap year.
Units are committed on an hourly basis with a priority to units
following non-controllable patterns (e.g. wind and excess heat
629
sources) followed by energy-efficient controllable units like CHP
and finally ending with the least efficient units like condensing
mode power plants and boilers for heat production.
Outputs of EnergyPLAN include the annual fuel balance, energy
production on different types of units, export and import elec-
tricity, total system cost and annual CO2 emissions.
The model has found application in research topics such as
analyzing the configuration of the energy systems [36e38], trans-
mission grid requirements [39], renewable energy share [40e42],
estimating CO2 emission [43e45] and designing models for island
energy system [6,46,47].
3. Scenario development
Section 3.1 explains the reference scenario development for the
base year 2016. To select the base year, we have referred to the
documents published by IRENA [27] and TERI [28], where 2010 is
the reference year opted by the former and 2016 by the latter. Since
there has been a lot of development in the Indian energy sector
after 2010, we preferred the choice of 2016 as the base year.1 Sec-
tion 3.2 details the data, assumptions and range of RES considered
for Optimal scenario development. TERI and IRENA scenario
development are detailed in Section 3.3.
3.1. Reference scenario development
This section introduces the reference scenario. It is developed to
validate EnergyPLAN’s ability to adequately represent the Indian
electricity system.
The hourly demand data required to develop the electric system
has been collected from the National Load Dispatch Centre (NLDC),
and the hourly import/export balance, transmission capacity,
installed capacities and the electric efficiencies from the Central
Electricity Authority (CEA) [48].
considered as 45%, that of nuclear plants as 40%, dammed hydro as
90% and pump back efficiency as 70% [13].
As the wind and solar power distribution data that is available
33
(Eq. 2)
from the government data platform has a monthly resolution, so
 the hourly distribution has been constructed from Ref. [49],
adjusted by the correction factors and verified from the actual
monthly generated data. The correction factor is a functionality
imbibed in the EnergyPLAN model that enables the modeler to
reduce the difference between the collected statistics and the
values estimated by the model.
In 2016, 1236 TWh of total electricity was generated which
included 944 TWh from coal, 0.275 from oil, 49 TWh from natural
1
Also, note that most of the data (specially data of hourly resolution) has been
collected from the National Load Despatch Centre (NLDC) for which official docu-
mentation had to be completed between the Institute and NLDC. This process is
very time intensive (more than 6 months to get data for 2016 and a few months of
2017). Authors declare that this is a collaborate work between two Institutes which
had a time bound, so we considered to start developing our reference model with
data of 2016.
630 P. Laha et al. / Renewable Energy 151 (2020) 627e639
Fig. 2. Electricity Demand (MWh) for year 2016 (Data collected from NLDC, India).
Fig. 3. Box-plot of monthly Electricity Demand of India in year 2016.
gas, 37.9 TWh from nuclear, 122 TWh from dammed hydro, 7.6 TWh
from river hydro, 12 TWh from solar, 46 TWh from wind and
14 TWh from bio energy [9].
Fig. 2 illustrates the hourly electricity demand distribution for
the base year 2016, with a minimum load of 92.7 TW in January and
a peak load of 156.7 TW in September. The monthly dispersion of
electricity demand can be assessed by observing the length of the
box represented in Fig. 3. The demand profile data has been
collected from NLDC. The data is not permitted to be disclosed for
open access.
3.2. Optimal_RES scenarios 2030
This section describes the RES potentials of India and how the
optimal scenario has been developed using EnergyPLAN.
The 2030 electricity model is based on a demand projection of
2426 TWh/year [15]. The input data for the range of production
capacity, their efficiencies, capacity factors and cost estimates have
been collected from the annual energy reports [10,50], future
projections published by the Indian Government [51], statistical
data published by Central Statistics Office [52] and cost data from a
published scenario in Ref. [27]. To calculate the cumulative installed
capacity of coal power plant capacity by 2030, planned decom-
missioning is considered. The oil-based condensing power plants
are likely to be completely replaced by biomass by 2030 in the same
scenario.
In this paper, wind is given highest priority in the RES mix as
observed from the annual growth in RES in India. The biomass
potential amounts to about 18.7 GWe from agro-residues and 14.6
GWe from forest and wasteland residues in India [53]. Nuclear ca-
pacity considered for scenario 2030, is in line with the govern-
ment’s declaration of efforts being made for scaling up nuclear
energy production (mentioned in India’s Intended Nationally
Determined Contribution [11]).
Average solar energy incident over India ranges from 4 kWh/m2
to 7 kWh/m2 with 2300 and 3200 per year of sunshine hours. India
Fig. 4. Hourly direct irradiation values in Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Rajasthan,
India over five days in June 2016 [57]. Tilt angle is equal to the latitude.
Fig. 5. Hourly wind speed values in Gujarat, Karnataka, Maharashtra, India over five
days in July 2016 [55].
can generate about 500 PWh of electricity per year assuming 17%
conversion efficiency for PV modules [54,55]. Solar distribution
profiles have been collected for all 29 states from Ref. [49]. A sample
of the hourly direct normal irradiation of four selected states
(Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Rajasthan) and their average is
shown in Fig. 4. This market potential has been assessed as 124 GW
by taking the total area under urban settlements as 77,370 km2
[56,57].
India’s installed wind power capacity was about 28.7 GW at the
end of 2016 [58]. The Indian National Institute for Wind Energy
(NIWE) has estimated the wind power potential to be about
302 GW (at 100 m). Hourly wind distribution profile of all states
have been collected from Ref. [49]. A sample of hourly wind speed
of a few states (with higher wind power potential [59]) have been
shown in Fig. 5.
Import is mathematically expressed in Eq. (3). Total production
Pt is divided into PRES and PCON (Eq. (4)) representing renewable and
conventional energy production respectively. Renewable genera-
tion includes biomass, river hydro, solar PV, wind and dammed
hydro production which are considered in every scenario iteration
(Eq. (5)). This paper explores the possibility of reducing import (Im)
in Eq. (3) while increasing PRES.
X X X
Im ¼ Dt;i þ S t;i  P t;i (Eq. 3)
t t t
X X
Pt ¼ P RES þ P CON (Eq. 4)
 P. Laha et al. / Renewable Energy 151 (2020) 627e639 631

X X X X optimal scenarios includes coal, natural gas and biomass.

P RES ¼ P biomass þ P dammed hydro þ P river hyro To maintain grid stability, a 30% minimum share of power pro-
i i i i duction has to come from ancillary-service providing units e here
X X
þ P wind þ P solar condensing PPs or the dammed hydro [60,61]. So, a minimum grid
i i stability share of 30% has been allotted for every scenario iteration.
(Eq. 5) An improvement in electric efficiency is expected by 2030 in
accordance with the National Mission for Enhanced Energy Efficiency
Where D, S, P, t and i represent demand, storage, production, (NMEEE) [62] of India. The construction period of each RES tech-
technology and hour of year respectively. Range of installed ca- nology has been considered from Refs. [63,64] while setting its
pacity (ICr) of each RES is considered as follows: capacity in this study.

ICr min  ICr  ICmax 3.3. IRENA and TERI scenario

ICr min: ICr(year 2016)
ICr max: Maximum exploitable potential of RES
In this paper, the ratio Renewable-Nuclear Dependency Index
(RNDI) of hourly (denoted by ‘i’ in Eq. (6)) renewable and nuclear to
condensing pp generation is evaluated. The magnitude of the ratio
(Eq. (6)) quantifies the dependency of the system on RES and nu-
clear as compared to condensing pp generation. Higher the index,
higher the dependency of the system on RES and nuclear.
h
RNDI i ¼ P dammed hydro þ P river hydro þ P wind þ P solar
. i
þP nuclear P condensing pp
i 20 GWh is included in all future scenarios. The choice of PHES is in
The initial scenario is developed considering the reference year
data as the starting value (given in Table 1). Using the reference
year potential, RES contributes 80 TWh (refer column 2 of Table 2)
electricity of the required 2426 TWh [15] for 2030 (which is just
3.3% of the required electricity). Step-wise increasing the RES share
by a fixed one percentage would result in a large number of sce-
nario iterations. Henceforth, RES potential is empirically increased
to 10 GW of biomass, 5 GW river hydro, 55 GW wind and 50 GW
solar PV which contributes about 15% of the 2030 demand. This
selected RES potential is subsequently treated as the new initial
point of 2030 scenario. In the succeeding steps, the biomass ca-
pacity is first fixed at 10 GW, while the wind, solar PV and river
hydro capacities are varied from 55 GW to 195 GW, 50 GWe180 GW
and 5 GWe15 GW respectively (enlisted in Table 1). Wind and solar
PV are varied with an equal increment of 10 GW while river hydro
with a capacity-step of 2 GW. Thus, the model is iterated for a total
of 1260 times for each selected value of biomass capacity to cover
all the combinations of wind, solar PV and river hydro. Biomass
capacity is varied in the range of 10 GW and 15 GW with an
increment of 1 GW (as its growth in India has not been very steep,
given in Fig. 2). Thus, the attempt has been to explore an exhaustive
range of RES potential for 2030.
Since the number of resulting iterations is very high, the MAT-
LAB toolbox v1.2 developed by Pedro Cabrera Santana [29] is
implemented to automate the execution. The condensing PP of the
The TERI scenario assumes the electricity demand to be
3175 TWh/yr and IRENA assumes it as 3450 TWh/yr. IRENA con-
siders nuclear, dammed hydro, condensing PPs (power plant)
including coal, oil, natural gas and biomass, and non-dispatchable
RES comprising of PV, onshore wind and river hydro. Nuclear,
dammed hydro, condensing PPs including coal, natural gas, along
with intermittent source such as onshore wind and PV are included
in the TERI scenario. Electricity generated from biomass and river
hydro is assumed to be almost insignificant by TERI. Both the TERI
and IRENA reports mention a need of storage capacity but have
neither specified size nor type of storage considered in their
(Eq. 6) calculation. In this paper, PHES (pumped hydro energy storage) of
line with the current national energy policy [13] and recent hydro
PP report [65]. IRENA and TERI scenarios estimate their installed
capacities to be about 812 GW [27] and 1186 GW [28] respectively.
The production capacities considered for the two scenarios are
enlisted in Table 1.
4. Results
This section presents the results of the scenarios analyzed using
the technical optimization criteria. The simulation outputs are
exported to excel spreadsheets which are plotted using open-
source python modules [67e69]. Section 4.1 shows the validation
of the reference model. Section 4.2 details the optimal scenarios
developed. Section 4.3 presents an hourly analysis of IRENA and
TERI scenarios of 2030 along with one of the optimal scenarios,
Optimal_RES scenario. Section 4.4 briefly explains the response of
the system if excess electricity production is allowed.
4.1. Reference model validation
The objective of this section is to validate that the 2016 reference
EnergyPLAN electricity model can be utilized for developing future
scenarios of 2030. The results of the reference scenario modelling
are validated against official statistics.
Table 2 illustrates the electricity production from various power

Table 1
Installed Capacity in Reference Scenario 2016, TERI 2030. Irena 2030 and range for Optimal _RES scenario development [18,69].

Fuel/Technology Reference Model Capacity 2016 (MW) IRENA 2030 (MW) TERI 2030 (MW) Range for Optimal_RES Scenarios 2030 (MW)

Natural Gas 25,282 15,000 29,969 25,282

Oil 919 3000 0a 0
Coal 188,968 310,000 218,207 240,000
Biomass 4882 10,000 0a 10,000e15,000
Nuclear 5780 5000 14,380 15,000
Dammed Hydro 43,139 54,000 70,131 60,000
River Hydro 4323 23,000 0a 5000e15,000
Wind Power 28,083 185,000 320,123 55,000e195,000
Solar PV 8513 207,000 533,538 50,000e180,000
a
Production capacity of oil, biomass and river hydro is not clearly declared in Ref. [66] but specified that contribution is negligible.
632 P. Laha et al. / Renewable Energy 151 (2020) 627e639

Table 2
Comparison of electricity production/fuel consumed obtained from EnergyPLAN model and statistics in 2016.

Annual Fuel Consumed/Production Unit 2016 Actual Power Production (TWh) EnergyPLAN 2016 (TWh) Difference (TWh) Difference (%)

Coal 944.86 946.49 1.63 0.17

Oil 0.28 0.28 0.0 0.0
Natural Gas 49.09 49.13 0.04 0.07
Nuclear 37.92 37.93 0.01 0.04
Dammed Hydro 122.31 122.57 0.26 0.21
Biomass 14.16 14.04 0.12 0.85
PV 12.09 11.82 0.27 2.25
Wind 46.01 46.99 0.98 2.08
River Hydro 7.70 7.59 0.11 1.46

Table 3
Cost and lifetime considered for scenarios 2030 [28].

Power Source Investment Cost (M INR/MW) O & M Cost (M INR/MW) Lifetime (years)

Photovoltaic 64 0.77 25
Wind 102.4 5.12 25
River Hydro 128 2.56 30
Dammed Hydro 96 1.92 30
Nuclear 274 5.48 40
Condensing PP 89.6 2.84 40

Table 4
Optimal scenarios for Electricity Import and Export equal to zero.

Scenario No. Biomass (GW) River Hydro (GW) PV (GW) Wind (GW) Fuel except RES (TWh/yr) RES (TWh/yr) %RES in Electricity

SC1 14 9 50 185 2235 769 31.69

SC2 14 7 50 185 2244 762 31.42
SC3 15 7 50 185 2244 762 31.42
SC4 15 5 50 185 2253 755 31.15
SC5 15 5 60 185 2228 774 31.89

Table 5
Optimal scenarios for Electricity Import and Export equal to zero with Biomass ¼ 14 GW, River Hydro ¼ 11 GW constant.

Scenario No. PV (GW) Wind (GW) Fuel except RES (TWh/yr) RES (TWh/yr) %RES in Electricity

SC6 50 175 2260 750 30.94

SC7 50 185 2226 775 31.96
SC8 60 175 2235 769 31.69
SC9 70 175 2211 787 32.43

Table 6
Optimal scenarios for Electricity Import and Export equal to zero with Biomass ¼ 14 GW, River Hydro ¼ 13 GW constant.

Scenario No. PV (GW) Wind (GW) Fuel except RES (TWh/yr) RES (TWh/yr) %RES in Electricity

SC10 50 165 2285 732 30.19

SC11 50 175 2251 757 31.21
SC12 50 185 2217 782 32.23
SC13 60 165 2260 750 30.94
SC14 60 175 2226 775 31.96
SC15 70 165 2235 769 31.69
SC16 80 165 2211 787 32.43

Table 7
Optimal scenarios for Electricity Import and Export equal to zero with Biomass ¼ 14 GW, River Hydro ¼ 15 GW constant.

Scenario No. PV (GW) Wind (GW) Fuel except RES (TWh/yr) RES (TWh/yr) %RES in Electricity

SC17 50 165 2276 739 30.46

SC18 50 175 2242 764 31.48
SC19 60 165 2251 757 31.21
SC20 60 175 2217 782 32.23
SC21 70 165 2226 775 31.96
SC22 80 165 2202 793 32.70
 P. Laha et al. / Renewable Energy 151 (2020) 627e639 633

Table 8
Optimal scenarios for Electricity Import and Export equal to zero with Biomass ¼ 15 GW, River Hydro ¼ 9 GW constant.

Scenario No. PV (GW) Wind (GW) Fuel except RES (TWh/yr) RES (TWh/yr) %RES in Electricity

SC23 50 175 2269 744 30.67

SC24 50 185 2235 769 31.69
SC25 60 175 2244 762 31.42
SC26 70 175 2220 780 32.16

Table 9
Optimal scenarios for Electricity Import and Export equal to zero with Biomass ¼ 15 GW, River Hydro ¼ 11 GW constant.

Scenario No. PV (GW) Wind (GW) Fuel except RES (TWh/yr) RES (TWh/yr) %RES in Electricity

SC27 50 165 2294 726 29.92

SC28 50 175 2260 750 30.94
SC29 50 185 2226 775 31.96
SC30 60 165 2269 744 30.67
SC31 60 175 2235 769 31.69
SC32 70 165 2244 762 31.41
SC33 70 175 2211 787 32.43
SC34 80 165 2220 780 32.16

Table 10
Optimal scenarios for Electricity Import and Export equal to zero with Biomass ¼ 15 GW, River Hydro ¼ 13 GW constant.

Scenario No. PV (GW) Wind (GW) Fuel except RES (TWh/yr) RES (TWh/yr) %RES in Electricity

SC35 50 165 2285 732 30.19

SC36 50 175 2251 757 31.21
SC37 50 185 2217 782 32.23
SC38 60 165 2260 750 30.94
SC39 60 175 2226 775 31.96
SC40 70 165 2235 769 31.69
SC41 80 165 2211 787 32.43

Table 11
Optimal scenarios for Electricity Import and Export equal to zero with Biomass ¼ 15 GW, River Hydro ¼ 15 GW constant.

Scenario No. PV (GW) Wind (GW) Fuel except RES (TWh/yr) RES (TWh/yr) %RES in Electricity

SC42 50 155 2310 714 29.44

SC43 50 165 2276 739 30.46
SC44 50 175 2242 764 31.48
SC45 60 155 2285 732 30.19
SC46 60 165 2251 757 31.21
SC47 60 175 2217 782 32.23
SC48 70 155 2260 750 30.94
SC49 70 165 2226 775 31.96
SC50 80 155 2235 768 31.68
SC51 80 165 2202 793 32.70
SC52 90 155 2211 787 32.43

plants in the Indian electricity sector for the year 2016 based on
both EnergyPLAN simulations and the statistics, and results very
similar. The largest difference is 2.25% for the solar PV plants fol-
lowed by 2.08% for onshore wind power plants. The hourly distri-
bution profile of solar and wind have been obtained through
simulation which influences this error.
Since the difference between statistics and simulation results
are minor, the simulation model is considered validated and
considered appropriate for the analysis of future scenarios.
4.2. Optimal_RES scenarios 2030
The Optimal_RES scenario developed in this paper are analyzed
in this section. The impact of RES penetration on the electricity
import, export, fuel consumption of fossil-based and nuclear power
plants, RES share in electricity production, annual cost have been
observed. The scenarios which meet the objective criteria under
various conditions are enlisted from Table 4 to Table 11 (scenarios
indicated by SC1-SC52). It is worth mentioning that simulation
results show that the maximum RES share of electricity possible at
zero values of import and export is about 32.7% for the year 2030.
Simulation results show that the total installed capacity reaches
approximately 615 GW, for the assumed capacity of nuclear, coal
and natural gas being 15 GW, 240 GW and 25.28 GW respectively
(see Table 11).
The optimal solution obtained have coal as the maximum
contributor of electricity; its installed capacity varying between
39% of the total production. The highest share of dammed hydro is
found to be about 10.3%, natural gas 4.3% and nuclear 2.6%. Calcu-
lations of wind, solar PV, biomass and river hydro share in pro-
duction capacity of the optimal scenario show a maximum share of
31%, 14.6%, 2.6% and 2.6% respectively. The electricity generation
from each source in scenarios SC1-SC52 are given in Fig. 6 and
Fig. 8. Results show that the condensing PP and nuclear contribute
634 P. Laha et al. / Renewable Energy 151 (2020) 627e639

Fig. 6. Electricity generation from Renewables and Nuclear power plants of scenarios Fig. 9. Variable (Var_Cost), Fixed (Fixed_Cost) and Investment (Inv_Cost) costs (in INR
SC1-SC25 enlisted in Tables 4e8. units) of scenarios SC26-SC52 enlisted in Tables 8e11.

Fig. 10. Electricity generation from different energy resources in the future scenarios
of 2030.
Fig. 7. Variable (Var_Cost), Fixed (Fixed_Cost) and Investment (Inv_Cost) costs (in INR
units) of scenarios SC1-SC25 enlisted in Tables 4e8.

more than twice the share of RES in electricity production. One of

the reasons being the optimal scenario is selected for zero value of
electricity export. This condition would lead to increase in emission
which is beyond the scope of the present study.
The investment and O&M (operation and maintenance) cost
declared by IRENA [27] are used for the cost analysis of all the
scenarios. Table 3 presents the input cost in terms of investment
cost (INR/MW) and O&M costs (INR/MW), and depreciation time
data (in years) considered for all the scenarios. The cost structures
of scenarios SC1-SC52 are graphically depicted in Fig. 7 and Fig. 9.

4.3. IRENA and TERI scenarios of 2030

Fig. 11. Total Installed Capacity of one Optimal_RES, IRENA and TERI Scenario 2030.

The two scenarios of 2030 proposed by IRENA and TERI (dis-

cussed in section 3.3) have been analyzed hourly with the optimal
scenario Optimal_RES in this section.
Fig. 8. Electricity generation from Renewables and Nuclear power plants of scenarios
SC26-SC52 enlisted in Tables 8-11.
IRENA, TERI and Optimal_RES are illustrated in Fig. 10 in terms of
proportion of electricity generated by each source and in Fig. 13 in
terms of production capacity. Fig. 11 shows that the contribution of
nuclear and wind in Optimal_RES scenario is higher as compared to
the other two scenarios while the contribution of solar PV is the
lowest.
Fig. 12- Fig. 13 display the hourly output power generation from
the different production units in a week in the month of July and
December respectively for the IRENA scenario. India witnesses high
wind power generation during the month of July (Fig. 12) and solar
generation generally increases in the cloud-free month of
December (Fig. 13).
Considering a typical day of that week (4th July), on an average
the wind power output would contribute about 33.2%, dammed
hydro 14.6%, solar PV 7.2%, river hydro 3.1% and condensing PP
about 40.9% every hour of the electricity produced. During the
hours when there is no solar PV production, it is complemented by
 P. Laha et al. / Renewable Energy 151 (2020) 627e639
Fig. 12. Hourly power output on a week in July for IRENA scenario.
Fig. 13. Hourly power output on a week in December for IRENA scenario.
Fig. 14. Hourly power output on a week in July for TERI scenario.
the wind and dammed hydro power (Fig. 12). Fig. 13 indicate that on
a typical day in winter (2nd December), a major production of
electricity would be contributed by solar PV (11.4%), wind (8.9%)
and the rest by dammed hydro (2.8%) and condensing PP (74.3%).
Fig. 14 and Fig. 15 show India’s hourly electricity supply of a
week in July and December respectively for the TERI scenario as
simulated in EnergyPLAN. Considering a day (4th July) of the week
illustrated in Fig. 14, it is observed that the onshore wind contrib-
utes about 41.1%, solar PV 10.3%, dammed hydro 17%, condensing PP
30.7% and nuclear 0.6% of the electricity production. A daily profile
in winter, say 2nd December (in Fig. 15), depicts a different energy
generation mix. The total daily electricity supply is here from 22.5%
635
Fig. 15. Hourly power output on a week in December for TERI scenario.
Fig. 16. Hourly power output on a week in July for Optimal_RES scenario.
Fig. 17. Hourly power output on a week in December for one selected Optimal_RES
scenario.
solar PV, wind (8.6%), dammed hydro (3.3%) and condensing PP
(64.8%).
The hourly electricity generation for Optimal_RES scenario
(SC51) is depicted in Fig. 16 - Fig. 17 respectively. Referring to Fig. 16
and considering again July 4th, it is seen that wind will contribute
about 42%, solar PV 3.9%, dammed hydro 23% as compared to
condensing PP providing 23.7% of the total electricity production.
The achieved share of electricity from condensing PP in the Opti-
mal_RES scenario is considerably less as compared to 40.9% for
IRENA and 30.7% for TERI scenarios for the same day. Increasing the
share of RES beyond the proposed optimal values, results in excess
636 P. Laha et al. / Renewable Energy 151 (2020) 627e639

Table 12
Comparative of the future scenarios of India as simulated in EnergyPLAN.

IRENA TERI Optimal_RES Scenario (SC51)

RES share of PES (%) 32.5 41.3 28.4

RES share of Electricity production (%) 31.3 37.8 32.7
Total Installed Capacity (GW) 812 1186 615
Electricity Import (TWh/yr) 21.55 316.03 0
Electricity Export (TWh/yr) 0 8.88 0
EEEP (TWh/yr) 0 8.63 0
CEEP (TWh/yr) 0 0.25 0
Total Cost of System (Billion INR) 7105 (0.35: 0.32: 0.33) 11,888 (0.18: 0.25: 0.57) 6516 (0.41: 0.3: 0.29)
(Variable: Fixed: Investment Cost)
No. of hours electricity import required 965 5034 0

Fig. 20. Monthly import, production from pp (condensing pp) plus nuclear power
Fig. 18. Monthly import, production from pp (condensing pp) plus nuclear power plant and RES generation in Optimal_RES Scenario 2030.
plant and RES generation in TERI Scenario 2030.

production. Import is highest in TERI scenario. RES generation

electricity production, which is discussed in Section 4.4.
shows a peak in the months of AprileMay primarily due to the high
The three scenarios above have been compared on the basis of
solar PV output, and in JulyeAugust which is also marked by high
performance indicators in Table 12. IRENA results in less share of
wind and hydro power output.
RES in PES and of electricity production than TERI scenario but the
Import is highest in the months of OctobereNovember when
latter requires the need of imported electricity of 316 TWh/yr
RES generation is least (observed in Figs. 18 and 19). However, the
against 21.5 TWh/yr of IRENA scenario. The higher electricity
Optimal_RES scenario does not import electricity during this period
import value for TERI is because of its relatively higher penetration
(observed in Fig. 20) where most of the demand is drawn from the
of wind and solar PV (72% of total installed capacity). The high
condensing PP (including coal, natural gas and biomass) and nu-
supply share of RES for TERI results in the annual critical excess
clear plants.
electricity production (CEEP) of 0.25 TWh. CEEP refers to the
Optimal_RES scenario varies with the TERI scenario, in terms of
electricity which is exceeding the electricity demand and the
biomass potential where its production capacity is about 15 GW
interconnection capacity.
while almost nil for TERI. RENA scenario considers a 5 GW nuclear
Fig. 18 - Fig. 20 demonstrate monthly distribution of import,
plant and Optimal_RES 15 GW. Both IRENA and TERI scenario im-
generation from condensing PP with nuclear plants and RES
ports in the month of October whereas Optimal_RES has zero po-
wer supply deficit - points to the contribution made from the
biomass and nuclear plants. This is an important observation made
in this study that biomass and nuclear power plants can be oper-
ated when the production from solar PV and wind is low, thus
increasing RES integration as well as reducing import. This situa-
tion is feasible keeping the natural gas potential constant as that of
the base year 2016, and increasing the coal potential to 240 GW.
However, no indirect emissions for biomass and environmental
impacts of nuclear plants are considered.
This paper is based on plausible RES integration for the year
2030 at least import requirement. The seasonal variation in avail-
ability of biomass and the upgradation of grid for biomass inte-
gration is not included. The scenarios proposed do not consider the
cost of transition of the electricity system from the base year
2016e2030, especially the inclusion of any major technology
change.
Fig. 19. Monthly import, production from pp (condensing pp) plus nuclear power Fig. 21 shows the Renewable-Nuclear Dependency Index (RNDI)
plant and RES generation in IRENA Scenario 2030.
 P. Laha et al. / Renewable Energy 151 (2020) 627e639
Fig. 21. RNDI per day for Optimal_RES, IRENA and TERI scenario for year 2030.
Fig. 22. Distribution of RNDI scaled by the number of days in year 2030 for Opti-
mal_RES, IRENA and TERI scenario.
calculated per hour for each day throughout the year for three
scenarios. It shows that Optimal_RES has a higher dependency on
RES and nuclear than condensing pp around the days when TERI
and IRENA scenario imports to meet the demand (compared with
Figs. 18e20).
Further observing the RNDI distribution per day of the week
(Fig. 22), the index is found to be higher in Optimal_RES.
Improvement of RNDI would enhance the dependency of RES and
nuclear integration while reduce the requirement of import.
The cost structures of IRENA, TERI and Optimal_RES scenarios
are represented in Fig. 23. The report published by TERI has not
disclosed any summary of cost assumed for their analysis, hence
the same cost structure as declared in Table 3 is considered for the
three scenarios. CO2 emission cost have not been included in the
future scenarios.
The TERI scenario costs the highest as its installed capacity is the
highest. Fig. 23 shows that TERI scenario is investment intensive
representing 57% of annual costs. Total annual cost of IRENA and
Optimal_RES is comparable, with investment cost measuring about
33% and 28.7% of the total costs respectively.
4.4. Excess electricity production
The results discussed in Section 4.2 show the possibility of
integrating RES with the constraint that no excess electricity is
produced. This puts an upper limit to explore the system for higher
RES penetration. This section discusses the impact of allowing
electricity export at zero electricity import. The wind and solar PV
capacity of Optimal_RES scenarios varied within the range of
200 GWe300 GW and 200 GWe600 GW respectively, which is the
maximum potential of either of the two resources in India.
Fig. 24 shows the export of electricity versed percentage of RES
share that can be integrated so as to utilize the full potential of the
637
Fig. 23. Annual system cost structure-investment, variable and fixed O&M. Based on a
discount rate of 5%.
Fig. 24. Relationship between excess Electricity Export and % of RES in Electricity
Generation for various combinations of wind and solar power. Wind Power is varied
between 200 GW and 300 GW, Solar PV is varied between 200 GW and 600 GW.
RES. The high value of export shows that the entire produced
electricity from RES is not being utilized by the system. One reason
for this output is that this electricity system includes a very low
value of storage as compared to the electricity demand for the year
2030. To explore the battery size that would enable maximum
integration, is beyond the scope of this paper.
5. Conclusion
In this article, optimal scenarios for the Indian electricity system
in 2030 are modelled. Two scenarios proposed by IRENA and TERI
are analyzed hourly in EnergyPLAN along with the optimal scenario
Optimal_RES. An indicator renewable-nuclear dependency index is
evaluated which can reflect how much the system is dependent on
RES and nuclear generation, and the extent of reduction of import
by the system. To further investigate the possibility of higher RES
penetration, Optimal_RES is analyzed considering excess electricity
export.
To summarize, the paper aims to answer two research questions
as mentioned in Section 1.3:
I. What is the optimal renewable scenario for the year 2030 which
would reduce the dependency on imported electricity to the
maximum?
Assessing various combinations of RES, we conclude that (1)
installed capacity of the optimal scenarios about 615 GW to fulfill
the electricity demand of 2426 TWh/year in 2030. (2) share of RES
in electricity generation is 32.7%. (3) required wind potential is
185 GW, solar 80 GW, biomass 15 GW, and river hydro 15 GW.
II. What is the effect of RES penetration on import?
638 P. Laha et al. / Renewable Energy 151 (2020) 627e639
According to this present study, it is seen that the inclusion of
optimal proportion biomass and nuclear (58 TWh and 96 TWh
respectively annually) could supply the electricity required in low
solar and wind generation days. Hourly analyzing the TERI and
IRENA scenarios reveal that both the systems require import of
965 h and 5034 h respectively of varying proportions, whereas the
Optimal_RES does not. This result is in accordance with the hourly
distribution profile considered for the study. The renewable-
nuclear dependency index (RNDI) is calculated as an indicator.
Simulation shows that enhancing the integration of renewable and
nuclear can reduce the requirement of import.
Acknowledgement
The electricity data used in this paper included copyrighted data
from the Indian Regional Load Dispatch Centers. Support from the
Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur in the form of a PhD
scholarship to Priyanka Laha is greatly appreciated.
References
[1] H. Blanco, W. Nijs, J. Ruf, A. Faaij, Potential for hydrogen and Power-to-Liquid
in a low-carbon EU energy system using cost optimization, Appl. Energy 232
(Dec. 2018) 617e639.
[2] T. Nakata, Energy-economic models and the environment, Prog. Energy
Combust. Sci. 30 (4) (Jan. 2004) 417e475.
[3] P. Laha, B. Chakraborty, “Energy model e a tool for preventing energy
dysfunction, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 73 (Supplement C) (Jun. 2017)
95e114.
[4] S. Djørup, J.Z. Thellufsen, P. Sorknæs, The electricity market in a renewable
energy system, Energy 162 (Jul. 2018) 148e157, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.energy.2018.07.100.
[5] H. Liu, G.B. Andresen, M. Greiner, Cost-optimal design of a simplified highly
renewable Chinese electricity network, Energy 147 (Mar. 2018) 534e546.
[6] I. Ba
cekovi
c, P.A. Østergaard, A smart energy system approach vs a non-
integrated renewable energy system approach to designing a future energy
system in Zagreb, Energy 155 (Jul. 2018) 824e837.
[7] A. Li, D. Peng, D. Wang, X. Yao, Comparing regional effects of climate policies
to promote non-fossil fuels in China, Energy 141 (Dec. 2017) 1998e2012.
[8] M. Sharifzadeh, R.K.T. Hien, N. Shah, “China’s roadmap to low-carbon elec-
tricity and water: disentangling greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from
electricity-water nexus via renewable wind and solar power generation, and
carbon capture and storage, Appl. Energy 235 (Feb. 2019) 31e42.
[9] Ravindra Verma, Pankaj Batra, Growth of Electricity Sector in India, Central
Electricity Authority, May-2017.
[10] Energy Statistics, Central Statistics Office, Ministry of Statistics and Pro-
gramme Implementation, vol. 25, 2018. New Delhi, India.
[11] India’s intended nationally determined contribution is balanced and
comprehensive: environment minister, 02-Oct-2015 [Online]. Available,
http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid¼128403. Accessed: 21-Feb-
2019.
[12] Year End Review 2018 e MNRE, Press Information Bureau, Government of
India, 10-Dec [Online]. Available, http://www.pib.nic.in/Pressreleaseshare.
aspx?PRID¼1555373. Accessed: 01-Apr-2019.
[13] National Energy Plan (Volume I), Government of India Ministry of Power
Central Electricity Authority, New Delhi, India, Jan. 2018.
[14] India takes giant leap on Green Energy Targets [Online]. Available, http://pib.
nic.in/newsite/printrelease.aspx?relid¼161622. Accessed: 28-Aug-2018.
[15] summary_19th_eps.pdf [Online]. Available, http://www.cea.nic.in/reports/
others/planning/pslf/summary_19th_eps.pdf. Accessed: 31-Oct-2018.
[16] A big turn-around in India’s Power Sector [Online]. Available, http://pib.nic.in/
newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid¼161811. Accessed: 30-Aug-2018.
[17] N. Nakicenoví c, T. Kram, A. Makarov, B. Makarov, K. Yokobori, and Z. Fengqi,
“Chapter 9 - energy scenarios,” WORLD ENERGY Assess. Energy Chall. Sustain.,
p. 35.
[18] M. Child, A. Nordling, C. Breyer, Scenarios for a sustainable energy system in
the Åland Islands in 2030, Energy Convers. Manag. 137 (Apr. 2017) 49e60.
[19] Z. Wang, R. Wennersten, Q. Sun, Outline of principles for building scenarios e
transition toward more sustainable energy systems, Appl. Energy 185 (Part 2)
(Jan. 2017) 1890e1898.
[20] K. Parikh, Sustainable development and low carbon growth strategy for India,
Energy 40 (1) (Apr. 2012) 31e38.
[21] Assessing the evolution of India’s power sector to 2050 under different CO2
emissions rights allocation schemes - ScienceDirect [Online]. Available,
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0973082618313176#s0035. Accessed: 17-Sep-2019.
[22] Scenario analysis of the CO2 emissions reduction potential through clean coal
technology in India’s power sector: 2014e2050 - ScienceDirect [Online].
Available, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S2211467X15000048#sec2. Accessed: 17-Sep-2019.
[23] K.S. Parikh, J.K. Parikh, P.P. Ghosh, Can India grow and live within a 1.5 degree
CO2 emissions budget? Energy Policy 120 (Sep. 2018) 24e37.
[24] S. Das, A. Kumar, I. Mohan, 100% renewable energy by 2050 for India | WWF
India, 2013 [Online]. Available, https://www.wwfindia.org/?10261/100-
Renewable-Energy-by-2050-for-India. Accessed: 24-Sep-2018.
[25] S. Byravan, et al., Quality of life for all: a sustainable development framework
for India’s climate policy reduces greenhouse gas emissions, Energy Sustain.
Dev. 39 (Aug. 2017) 48e58.
[26] P.R. Shuklaa, S. Dhar, M. Pathak, D. Mahadevia, A. Garg, Pathways to Deep
Decarbonization in India, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, Sep.
2015.
[27] D. Gielen, D. Saygin, N. Wagner, A. Ghosh, K. Chawla, REmap: Renewable
Energy Prospects for India, International Renewable Energy Agency, May
2017.
[28] Mr A. K. Saxena, “Transitions in Indian electricity sector (2017 - 2030),” En-
ergy Resour. Inst., p. 28.
[29] MATLAB Toolbox for EnergyPLAN | EnergyPLAN.”.
[30] P.A. Østergaard, Reviewing EnergyPLAN simulations and performance indi-
cator applications in EnergyPLAN simulations, Appl. Energy 154 (Supplement
C) (Sep. 2015) 921e933.
[31] P.A. Østergaard, Reviewing optimisation criteria for energy systems analyses
of renewable energy integration, Energy 34 (9) (Sep. 2009) 1236e1245.
[32] H. Lund, et al., © Sustainable Energy Planning Research Group, Aalborg Uni-
versity, Denmark Published online at, www.EnergyPLAN.eu, p. 180.
[33] D. Groppi, D. Astiaso Garcia, G. Lo Basso, L. De Santoli, Synergy between smart
energy systems simulation tools for greening small Mediterranean islands,
Renew. Energy 135 (May 2019) 515e524.
[34] C.-D. Yue, C.-S. Chen, Y.-C. Lee, Integration of optimal combinations of
renewable energy sources into the energy supply of Wang-An Island, Renew.
Energy 86 (Feb. 2016) 930e942.
[35] C.K. Ekman, “On the synergy between large electric vehicle fleet and high
wind penetration e an analysis of the Danish case, Renew. Energy 36 (2) (Feb.
2011) 546e553.
[36] P.A. Østergaard, Wind power integration in Aalborg Municipality using
compression heat pumps and geothermal absorption heat pumps, Energy 49
(Supplement C) (Jan. 2013) 502e508.
[37] P.A. Østergaard, Modelling grid losses and the geographic distribution of
electricity generation, Renew. Energy 30 (7) (Jun. 2005) 977e987.
[38] P.A. Østergaard, “Comparing electricity, heat and biogas storages’ impacts on
renewable energy integration, Energy 37 (1) (Jan. 2012) 255e262.
[39] P. Alberg Østergaard, Transmission-grid requirements with scattered and
fluctuating renewable electricity-sources, Appl. Energy 76 (1) (Sep. 2003)
247e255.
[40] L. Hong, N. Zhou, D. Fridley, C. Raczkowski, “Assessment of China’s renewable
energy contribution during the 12th Five Year Plan, Energy Policy 62 (Sup-
plement C) (Nov. 2013) 1533e1543.
[41] B. Zakeri, S. Syri, S. Rinne, “Higher renewable energy integration into the
existing energy system of Finland e is there any maximum limit? Energy 92
(Part 3) (Dec. 2015) 244e259.
[42] A. Franco, P. Salza, Strategies for optimal penetration of intermittent renew-
ables in complex energy systems based on techno-operational objectives,
Renew. Energy 36 (2) (Feb. 2011) 743e753.
[43] I. Oropeza-Perez, P.A. Østergaard, The influence of an estimated energy saving
due to natural ventilation on the Mexican energy system, Energy 64 (Sup-
plement C) (Jan. 2014) 1080e1091.
[44] B. Mo €ller, H. Lund, Conversion of individual natural gas to district heating:
geographical studies of supply costs and consequences for the Danish energy
system, Appl. Energy 87 (6) (Jun. 2010) 1846e1857.
[45] H. Lund, E. Münster, Integrated transportation and energy sector CO2 emis-
sion control strategies, Transp. Policy 13 (5) (Sep. 2006) 426e433.
[46] A. Pfeifer, V. Dobravec, L. Pavlinek, G. Kraja
ci
c, N. Dui
c, Integration of
renewable energy and demand response technologies in interconnected en-
ergy systems, Energy 161 (Oct. 2018) 447e455.
[47] I. Ba

cekovi c, P.A. Østergaard, Local smart energy systems and cross-system
integration, Energy 151 (May 2018) 812e825.
[48] Annual Generation Target, Central Electricity Authority, New Delhi, 2016.
[49] Renewables.ninja [Online]. Available, https://www.renewables.ninja/.
Accessed: 11-Nov-2017.
[50] S.G.S. Lakshmi, Energy Statistics 121 (2017).
[51] A target of installing 175 GW of renewable energy capacity by the year 2022
has been set [Online]. Available, http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?
relid¼180728. Accessed: 04-Nov-2018.
[52] Central Statistics Office (CSO), Ministry of statistics and program imple-
mentation | government of India [Online]. Available, http://www.mospi.gov.
in/central-statistics-office-cso-0. Accessed: 04-Nov-2018.
[53] Biomass Portal, Clean green and sustainable energy [Online]. Available,
https://biomasspower.gov.in/biomass-info-asa-fuel-resources.php. Accessed:
18-Jul-2019.
[54] A. Sharma, A comprehensive study of solar power in India and World, Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 15 (4) (May 2011) 1767e1776.
[55] C. Olivares-Rodríguez, T. Castillo-Calzadilla, O. Kamara-Esteban, Bio-inspired
approximation to MPPT under real irradiation conditions, in: Intelligent
Distributed Computing XII, 2018, pp. 107e118.
 P. Laha et al. / Renewable Energy 151 (2020) 627e639
[56] M. Goel, Solar rooftop in India: policies, challenges and outlook, Green Energy
Environ. 1 (2) (Jul. 2016) 129e137.
[57] S. Sundaray, L. Mann, U. Bhattacharjee, S. Garud, and A. K. Tripathi, “The Sun
with Rooftop Solar,” p. 79.
[58] Year end review 2017 eMNRE [Online]. Available, http://pib.nic.in/newsite/
PrintRelease.aspx?relid¼174832. Accessed: 01-Sep-2018.
[59] P.K. Chaurasiya, V. Warudkar, S. Ahmed, Wind energy development and policy
in India: a review, Energy Strategy Rev. 24 (Apr. 2019) 342e357.
[60] J.J. Vidal-Amaro, P.A. Østergaard, C. Sheinbaum-Pardo, Optimal energy mix for
transitioning from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources e the case of the
Mexican electricity system, Appl. Energy 150 (Jul. 2015) 80e96.
[61] H. Lund, Renewable Energy Systems: the Choice and Modeling of 100%
Renewable Solutions, Elsevier, 2010.
[62] NMEEE, Bureau of energy efficiency [Online]. Available, https://www.
beeindia.gov.in/content/nmeee-1. Accessed: 23-Nov-2018.
639
[63] A. Das, A. Halder, R. Mazumder, V.K. Saini, J. Parikh, K.S. Parikh, Bangladesh
power supply scenarios on renewables and electricity import, Energy 155 (Jul.
2018) 651e667.
[64] V. Aryanpur, M.S. Atabaki, M. Marzband, P. Siano, K. Ghayoumi, An overview
of energy planning in Iran and transition pathways towards sustainable
electricity supply sector, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 112 (Sep. 2019) 58e74.
[65] Standing Committee on Energy, Hydro-power.pdf vol. 43, Ministry of Power,
Hydro Power, New Delhi, Jan. 2019.
[66] Energy transition Book_web.pdf [Online]. Available, http://pairvi.org/
Publications/Energy%20Transition%20Book_web.pdf. Accessed: 10-Nov-2018.
[67] K. Kavvadias, Enlopy: Python Toolkit for Energy Load Time Series, 2019.
[68] J.D. Hunter, Matplotlib: a 2D graphics environment, Comput. Sci. Eng. 9 (3)
(May 2007) 90e95.
[69] Plotly Technologies Inc, Collaborative Data Science, Plotly Technologies Inc.,
2015.